Final Fix
After being bombarded with hundreds of polls during the campaign, the final ones are out tonight:
SES
Lib 30.1%
CPC 36.4%
NDP 17.4%
BQ 10.6%
Somewhat interesting are the Sunday numbers in the poll which have the Tories up by a mere 2.8%, and only 1.7% among voters "very likely" to vote. Yeah, there's a big margin of error, but it should provide
Ipsos, meanwhile, has the Tories up by 10. The Globe is promising a Greg poll later tonight.
After tonight, we'll be back to monthly polls, so I suspect a few of us will be checking into rehab, once the SES-withdrawal symptoms start to kick in.
UPDATE: The Strategic Counsel has it 37-27-19-11...like pretty much every other polling firm out there.
UPDATE: The Election Prediction Project has their numbers down to 118 Tory, 99 Liberals, 58 Bloc, 28 NDP, 1 Independent, and 4 too close to call.
posted by calgarygrit at
9:16 p.m.
41 Comments:
Tonight's SC is up on the SC website with the same 10 pt. lead. n=~1800.
By
Anonymous, at 9:43 p.m.
I will go out on a limb and say the SES poll is hinting at the Liberals winning the popular vote.
By
Anonymous, at 9:48 p.m.
HAHA! All of you who doubted Paul are going to be mighty pissed off tomorrow. Cherniak was right all along and doubters like you got caught up in your Harper fetish and let it cloud your judgement!
By
Anonymous, at 9:56 p.m.
Bricker of IPSOS, at the Coyner site:
Yup, this is no game for those with weak stomachs.
Here's how we did our prediction. We did 2,000 interviews between Tuesday and Thursday by phone. That was the 10 pt gap that we released on Friday. Then, I did 500 on each of Friday and Saturday night by telephone. That showed a bit of a surge for the Tories over the weekday polling.
Then, I ran our Internet panel of 12,000 pre-selected respondents who said they would be very likely/certain to vote on Monday. Nearly 8,000 responded. That survey showed about what Friday's results showed. I rolled together the Internet survey with the 3,000 telephone interviews, weighted back the weekday interviews by half, and that's how we got our prediction.
As for modelling, I've described what we do in other postings. I used the blended 11,000 to do the last version.
As for who is closest, all of the pollsters are showing a similar outcome. All are also showing findings that can only be modelled as a minority. At 12 pts, we're on the outer edge of aggressive for the Tories, but even then we're not at a majority yet.
I'm comfortable with what we've done and will sleep soundly tonight. I can't think of what else I could do to make it any better than what we've got.
Posted by: Darrell Bricker | Email | 1/22/2006 9:35PM
COMMENT: Sample size should put fears to rest. Erik.
By
Anonymous, at 9:59 p.m.
Strategic Counsel has their numbers up on their website. Editorial exclamation points are mine.
January 19-22, 2006
Sample size: 2500
MOE: +/- 2%
CPC: 37
Liberal: 27
NDP: 19
BQ: 11
Green: 6
Regional breakdowns:
Montreal: BQ 48, L 18(!), C 16, N 10, G 8
Rest of Quebec: BQ 48, C 32, L 11, N 5, G 5
416: L 39, C 27, N 27, G 7 (!)
905: L 51, C 34, N 10, G 5 (virtually no change from 2006)(!)
SW Ontario: C 37, L 33, N 23, G 7
E Ontario: C 44, L 28, N 20, G 8
Man/Sask: C 47, N 25, L 21, G 7
Alberta: C 69, L 15, N 8, G 8
B.C. Lower Mainland: L 35, C 34, N 27, G 4
Rest of B.C.: C 37, N 34, L 23
Atlantic: C 36, L 34, N 24, G 5 (!)
Bottom line: still looks like a CPC minority, indications of a Lib bounce in Ontario (yeah great, thanks again guys), Dippers poised to make major gains in Ontario and B.C.
By
Anonymous, at 9:59 p.m.
I was waiting for some late numbers, incl. the SC tallies. The SES numbers are heavily weighted towards undeclared gLibs & undecideds who answered their phones in Ont.
I give the CPC 155-162 with 8-10 tories in Quebec and more than half of the Ont. seat total, 75 in the West & Territories and 17-18 in the Atlantic prov's.
There are enough 3-way races that I can't call the NDP vs. gLib totals and the tory numbers in Quebec also make a handful of bloc seats vulnerable to the gLibs IF the Mtl. & surrounds gLib vote turns out--I suspect it will be a record low turnout of gLib voters.
If the bloc and Libs are in the same ballpark of seat totals or the Libs end up with less, then there will be a whole new political dynamic at play if Harper nails a majority or is within a stone's throw of one in the coming months...
ie. much conjecture vis a vis a gLib NDP political alliance/merger.
If the gLibs attempt to hue to the centre-right, the party will split into two openly opposed factions with left-leaning gLibs wanting to ally with dippers and greens within wedge issue coalitions.
As Gilles Duceppe's former paramount leader might have quipped 'may you live in interesting times'!
By
Anonymous, at 10:17 p.m.
anonymous - "a Lib bounce in Ontario (yeah great, thanks again guys)"
You are welcome. We will keep Harper in check for you buddy.
By
Anonymous, at 10:25 p.m.
Martin hit a low point with me with his crack about Calgary while campaigning in Atlantic Canada. Even if Martin had some factual basis, these divisive attacks serve no ones interest. The sad part is these type of comments are effective, the SES poll shows a big Liberal surge in Atlantic Canada.
By
Steve V, at 10:59 p.m.
HERE's a trend for you.
52,60,66,99,?
Double digit seat growth every election.
WANNA KNOW WHICH PARTY?
not the liberals.
And now the (reform/alliance/tory) future calls to the fertile untouched grounds of quebec for even more future growth.
By
mike mcall, at 11:11 p.m.
I dunno about this SES poll.
How many of us radical ultra right wing extreme Christian Conservatives are home on Sunday morning to respond to a telephone poll? Most of the ones I know were at church, with copies of the Hidden Agenda, drinking the blood of unbaptised babies and stuff.
By
Anonymous, at 11:18 p.m.
I for one was lifting a new barn with all my other christian breathern listening to 100 huntley street.
By
mike mcall, at 11:23 p.m.
Was that the little ringy dingy i heard, i was fixing the wagonwheel. Got to go and milk those cows now.
By
mike mcall, at 11:32 p.m.
Why don't you just change your name to "CalgaryTory" and end the charade?
By
Hishighness, at 11:50 p.m.
HH: Dunno. I read CG regularly and I haven't caught him supporting the CPC. Is this blog meant to be a party organ?
By
Anonymous, at 12:06 a.m.
HisHighness; Out of curiosity, how is posting poll numbers pro-Tory? Seriously. You'd have to be delusional to think the Liberals are going to win this thing. I imagine even St.Louis Blues fans have conceeded they likely aren't going to win the Stanley Cup this year and that it's time to rebuild.
And, I explained earlier this week that I'd vote Liberal.
By
calgarygrit, at 12:25 a.m.
I know im a NEWB to this blog, but, being a calgarian all my life, the term CALGARYGRIT is like saying GOODSTALIN or greatMAO. its just makes me think why would anyone choose such an oxymoron for a name>
Why bother voting liberal in Calgary? Its like banging your head against a brick wall. It has'nt worked for 40 years and probabely won't for another 40. Conservatism is so entrenched in calgary that even i went to school with PRESTON MANNINGS son. I went out with PRESTON MANNINGS secretary. Schools are named after MANNING's dad. Harpers own riding is calgary SW.( MANNINGs old riding). Im not a tory fanatic, just a regular joe, however, in just my own personal experience, i've only meet a couple of liberals in all my years in alberta. Who taught you to be a liberal? Maybe you could visit the calgary zoo so all the red blooded calgarians can see a real liberal. God knows that chretian and martin have only been here a handful of times in their tenures.
By
mike mcall, at 12:48 a.m.
Have you ever happened to venture to the university of calgary Mike? I've met plenty of liberals there. I don't mind admitting that I'm a (disgruntled) liberal from Calgary.
Hardeep
By
Anonymous, at 1:11 a.m.
um mike, 3 of those 2 (couple of) liberals in calgary are MLA's.
- a cpc supporter.
By
Anonymous, at 1:13 a.m.
CPC supporter
Those 2 or 3 liberals are just visting.
It usually takes about seven years for an easterner to become a westerner.
By
Anonymous, at 1:20 a.m.
Actually, i went to the U OF C and the U OF A. Like most successfull calgarians, i have 2 houses and a high income oil career.
ONTO THE MAIN POINT.
I do not understand the stupidity of some people who would knowingly support a gaggle of lieberals. Anyhow, i'll be laughing tommorow at your wasted vote.
however.
ATTENTION ALL LIBERALS:
you will earn my respect if you do the following:
I want you to get an old VOLVO
PUT a bumper sticker on it that says "I LOVE GAY MARRIAGE and support GUN CONTROL"
And drive it anywhere out near CAROLINE AB.
LET'S SEE HOW FAR YOU CAN MAKE IT.
IT WOULD BE LIKE THE OPENING SCENE IN SAVING PRIVATE RYAN I WAGER>
By
mike mcall, at 1:29 a.m.
jack: 3 of 2? MLAs?
The guy claims to be from Calgary and doesn't know 3 Calgary ridings sent Liberals to Edmonton? (Mind you all Alberta Liberals belong in Edmonton, but in the Legislature?)
By
Anonymous, at 1:32 a.m.
mike: They'd be perfectly safe in Caroline. Albertans like eccentrics.
By
Anonymous, at 1:34 a.m.
Come on, is that the best you can do, talk about provincial politics now. IM TALKING THE GAME>
AND THE SCORE IS LOOKING LIKE 28-0 for the good guys.
By
mike mcall, at 1:35 a.m.
IN ALBERTA
28 cons - 0 libs
thats worse than the senators beating the leafs 7-0 yesterday.
By
mike mcall, at 1:37 a.m.
You liberals should'nt be upset.
You should just employ a technique that the British Army used in the colonial days. They called it the defensive square. Whenever there is danger, you run all together and fend off attackers in a square.
Oh wait, thats also called TORONTO.
Maybe you wayward liberals should go back to your square, cause the asswhooping is here and if your not in your square, your going to get smoked.
By
mike mcall, at 1:53 a.m.
CG,
you forgot to add the even more influential, "daveberta strategic prediction council project."
Their extremely responsible polling results along with a highly complicated forula actually show seat results before they actually happen... it's a very very complicated formula, so we don't have the space to fully explain it here. Anyway, these were the results. Results are true 100% out of 110%, 100 times out of 90 (again, too complicated to explain).
Here are the seats results of our indepth analysis:
CPC - 139
LIB - 84
BLOC - 60
NDP - 24
IND - 1
By
daveberta, at 2:03 a.m.
mike: Not sure what you're on about. 28-0 would be fine by me. And CG is pretty much expecting it.
By
Anonymous, at 2:08 a.m.
CG
CG- Delusional? That is a pretty strong word. I prefer term irrational exuberance.
Anyways, alot of delusional Liberals are hoping the results are alot better than you predicted.
By
Anonymous, at 8:38 a.m.
I am a proud SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE. I predict you will see a backlash from social conservatives in tonight's election. We are sick and tired of being demonized and slandered all through this election by the liberals (although there are a significant portion of libs who claim to be social conservatives - Dan McTeague, Tom Woppal, etc.) and the NDP.
There has never been such deep vile hatred spewed out towards those who simply try to live their lives with morals and values. The poisonist hatred of the socialists is very obvious. So much for "tolerance" of the political left.
By
Anonymous, at 9:25 a.m.
Anonymous
BS, the vile is not thrown at social conservatives for “simply try to live their lives with morals and values”, but because many of them try to impose their morals and values on the rest of us.
Most Liberals could care less what your morals and values are. We just don’t want you legislating those values on the rest of us.
The election isn’t over and conservative whining has already begun. Sheesh.
By
Anonymous, at 9:58 a.m.
Blah, that's all fine and dandy, but the fantastic ravings of the Prime Minister about the supposed social conservative agenda of the Conservatives has been nothing short of vile.
There is absolutely no evidence to support the assertion that the Conservative Party under Stephen Harper is a vehicle for the promotion of the social conservative agenda, as the party platform makes abundantly clear.
That Paul Martin, in the dying days of his disgraceful regime, has attempted to shore up his sagging support by raising the wholly fictional spectre of theocratic dictatorship run by social conservatives, is alternatingly delusional in its paranoia and gut-wrenchingly offensive in its attempt to play Canadians off of each other. I suspect that while these virulent attacks will have some effect, I also imagine that they will convince many conscientious Liberals to withhold their vote. I know personally of three Catholic Liberals for whom these attacks were the final straw. They're still not voting Conservative, but they refuse to lend their support to Paul Martin any longer.
By
DM, at 10:25 a.m.
DM so if I provided you evidence of a social conservative agenda you wouldn't vote conservative? (rhetorical question, I know your answer already)
You are kidding yourself if you think pointing out the CPC social conservative values is not effective politics. I know just as many people who are not voting conservative because of the regressive social views (and agenda) of some conservative MPs.
Personally I believe social conservatism is the only reason the Liberals are still in this race.
By
Anonymous, at 10:48 a.m.
Blah, while I think that the Prime Minister's fear and smear campaign is pushing votes in a variety of directions, I don't disagree that on the whole, it's a net gain for him.
My point is that, whether successful or not, it's simply a disgraceful way to campaign. Neither Myron Thompson, nor Liberal MP Tom Wappel (whose views on homosexuality or abortion would prompt Myron to file a human rights complaint) are on the ballot in my riding. What the Prime Minister is attempting to concoct out of thin air is some sort of sinister agenda that simply isn't reflected in the Conservative platform, the priorities of its leadership, or the interests of the caucus and the party as a whole. In so doing, he is vilifying a large number of Canadians whose only "crime" is to disagree with the current incarnation of the Prime Minister, who was on their side when the winds blew in the other direction, and would be again if the political current changed.
Some of us are trying to build a better Canada. Others, like the Prime Minister, don't mind burning down the house as long as they can keep the deed to the property. This tactic of playing one part of the country off against another, and exposing other Canadians to ridicule and abasement is simply appalling. A better man wouldn't take this low road, no matter how many votes he finds while trawling in the gutter. True Liberals like Laurier, Pearson and Trudeau would never have stooped to these depths.
By
DM, at 11:15 a.m.
I wouldn’t call enlightening left lean voters about the social conservative agenda of Conservative MPs as play one part of the country off the other. It seems to me that social conservatives are offended that the issues they care about are being discussed out in the open and their view on those issues are being described negatively by the Liberals.
Harper has said that under his government the next parliament will decide whether SSM rights will be taken away. Let’s be honest here, if the CPC has a majority (perhaps even a slim minority) in the next parliament and the bulk of their MPs are against SSM, then SSM will be abolished (barring a SC challenge). It doesn’t matter that it is not on some official party pamphlet or that the CPC does not want to discuss the issue during an election.
I find it scary that parliament would consider taking away the rights of a minority group. More so because the Conservatives plan to do so by stealth rather than campaigning based on the issue. It begs the question, who is next? Muslims? Immigrants?
Do you think Harper is going to prevent one of his own MPs from bring forth “Defense of Marriage” legislation? How do you think Harper himself would vote on this issue?
It’s remarkable how conservatives can pretend that only Liberals are disingenuous.
There is nothing wrong with reminding left leaning voters that their own self interest may not lie with the Conservatives.
By
Anonymous, at 12:17 p.m.
DM, I think one of the issues is that a lot of people don't believe that the CPC has "changed its spots". I know that I don't...
By
Anonymous, at 12:37 p.m.
Blah,
Nobody, least of all me, is suggesting that any topic is off-limits during a national election. Same-sex marriage, in particular, is worth discussing because the Conservatives have made clear their agenda on the matter: the House will be asked, via a free vote for members of the Conservative caucus, whether they wish to re-open the matter. To that extent, because the party has not adopted a position on a matter of conscience, the views of individual MPs are important, but Martin doesn't want to talk about individuals, least of all the nearly 40 MPs in his own caucus who oppose same-sex marriage. Instead, he wants to paint the entire Conservative Party with the same brush, and imply that a vote for the Conservatives is a vote for bigotry and intolerance, as if the Liberal Party was somehow immune from these human failings. How is it that Jack Layton can recognize that people can disagree on this matter without calling into question their worthiness to be in public life, while the Prime Minister, who was dragged kicking and screaming to his current position on the issue, and still has yet to offer a clear-throated and vigourous argument in favour of same-sex marriage besides his lame incantation of the Charter, thunders about like a B-movie dictator accusing those who disagree with him as being unCanadian? This constant accusation that his opponents are not merely people with another perspective but are "far-right", "neoconservatives", "social conservatives", "U.S. style", "extremists", etc, etc, is the problem, not the fact that he makes these issues a point of disagreement.
But the real kicker is the incessant and unnecessary focus on abortion. Given that no party has any intention of introducing any legislation on this front - and, it should be noted, only the Conservatives have made it firm party policy to neither initiate nor support such legislation - Martin's fanning of these flames is wholly irresponsible. People on both sides of the issue have deep-seated, highly personal opinions on the matter. That he would seek to exploit those cleavages for political gain in a campaign where the issue is so remote that it couldn't be spotted with the Hubble telescope is indicative of Martin's complete immaturity. Paul Wells had a revealing post along these lines the other day, citing a passage from Lawrence Martin's Chretien biography, showing how Martin in a previous losing cause practiced scorched earth politics without consideration for the consequences.
At the start of this campaign, I was hopeful that we would be rid of the Prime Minister, thinking we could do better but acknowledging that another Martin victory would not be damaging to the fabric of this country. But after eight weeks of his increasingly vile demagoguery, I think his defeat is not only wholly deserved but an absolute necessity.
By
DM, at 12:49 p.m.
Blah,
When liberal and NDP political pundants continue to label people with morals and values as "extreme and dangerous", this was the same type of hyperbole used to discredit and demean the Jews in Germany. This is intolerance.
By
Anonymous, at 1:01 p.m.
Anonymous
I will repeat, no one has any issues with your morals or values unless you try and impose those values on people who do not share them through legislation.
I sure as a conservative you don’t want government meddling in your business affairs why do you feel they should meddle in someone else’s personal affairs?
By
Anonymous, at 1:52 p.m.
Anon 11:01
"When liberal and NDP political pundants continue to label people with morals and values as "extreme and dangerous"..."
Are yopu implying, Anon, that Liberal and NDP "pundits" have no values? That is sure what it sounds like.
Liberals and NDP pundits have values, just different ones from you. They do not wish to enforce their values on anyone, but wish everyone to be free and for the government to treat people equally. There was nothing in SSM that directly affected you unless you were gay. In this sense, the Liberals and NDP have more in common with the libertarian wing of your own party - the government has no business legislating or discriminating against the actions of consenting adults which cause no harm. Saying they are "extreme and dangerous" is perhaps over the top, but recognize it for what it is - rehtoric in an election. The people that proclaimed themselves that SSM would result in the extinction of the human race and a chaotic social breakdown should not be complaining about being called extreme.
And comparing your situation with the situation of the Jews in pre-WW2 Germany is the very definition of hyperbole. Get real. THAT is insulting.
Someone who wishes to remove (or event consider voting on removing)the Charter rights of other Canadians because they don't share your particular world view should not be calling anyone 'intolerant'. If you are willing to dish it out, be prepared to take it.
By
Mike, at 2:49 p.m.
"Morality is simply the attitude we adopt towards people whom we personally dislike."
By
Anonymous, at 3:39 p.m.
Aw crap...CTV's interviewing Brian Mulroney right now. And the old man is smiling like the chershire cat.
It's gonna be a long couple of years.
By
Anonymous, at 10:13 p.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home